Let’s take these in order, starting with whether the unexpected strength of the equities markets means more money will be spent on art. The main measure of the U.S. equities market, the S&P 500, was up 24 percent last year, far exceeding what most analysts had predicted. (See what I mean about predictions?) But as Alex Glauber pointed out in ARTnews, the equity markets are a double-edged sword for the art market. They can generate a wealth effect that translates into art sales, but the anticipation that the Trump administration could unleash greater profits is balanced by uncertainty and the heightened potential for volatility. More to the point, the equity markets are actually a relatively small portion of the wealth picture. Meanwhile, though, the market for treasuries is already moving in the wrong direction ahead of Trump’s inauguration, and Bloomberg was hinting darkly on Sunday that one prominent trader who made a lot of money during the Great Recession thinks the current situation is analogous to where things stood in 2005 to 2007. If that’s not dark enough for you, we’ve just had our first human death from bird flu. The virus does not transmit from human to human right now, but there’s always a chance we’re also on the cusp of an early-2020 scenario, if you really want to go negative… On a less apocalyptic note, let’s remember that the financially flush have no obligation to spend their money on art. As we saw last year, when art lending unexpectedly took off, other markets can draw cash out of art as collectors seek a real return. A strong 2025 could produce a similar result.

Market gains aren’t the only potential source of new money for the art market. There’s talk, especially from the Fine Art Group’s Philip Hoffman, that new buyers from the Middle East will enter the market for so-called blue chip (read: expensive) art—which, if it occurs, would be auspicious. The auction market for works above $1 million, and especially above $5 million, has suffered greatly these past two years. Supply has obviously been an issue, but supply also follows demand. On the other hand, even though Hoffman has a long history in the region, his evidence for this new demand is, unfortunately, a bit thin. It amounts to, in his words, “a slew of major investments, new museums and real estate outposts.” That reads more like new infrastructure than actual new collectors. One place we do know there are more actual buyers is in the market for Indian modern and contemporary art, which really took off in 2023. It moderated slightly last year, but no one thinks we’ve seen the last of the Indian art market as the country generates more wealth. We saw a similar story play out two decades ago with Chinese contemporary art, when Taiwanese and mainland Chinese buyers scoured the globe for works of art to repatriate from Europe and the U.S. After that came the growth of a market for pan-Asian and Western artists in the region. Now it looks to be India’s turn. Amrita Jhaveri, a gallerist in Mumbai, told The Art Newspaper that there’s already growing visibility for, and interest in, a wave of artists who came of age in the 1970s and ’80s after the success of the famous Indian modern painters of the post-Independence era. Jhaveri singled out mostly female artists, such as Arpita Singh, Nilima Sheikh, and Mrinalini Mukherjee.

Even though the art market looks to auctions to set the headline prices that drive sales across the secondary market (and often have strong effects on primary market pricing, too), people like Hoffman and former auctioneer Jussi Pylkkänen are pointing to the robust private market and suggesting it might remain the preferred arena for sellers. Let’s not sleep on this prediction, because it could have a profound effect on the tenor and tone of the art market. The possibility that the top of the market continues to be hidden in private sales is an enormous deal, and probably a subject for another column, soon. Meanwhile, the search for a new narrative—a collecting thesis that redefines the pecking order in terms of art history, popularity, and value—may be the overriding theme of the current market. A narrative is what lures the marginal buyers—the ones who are following other collectors without, possibly, fully understanding their rationale. The art world tends to call these spendy buyers “speculators,” but they’re really the opposite, and their disappearance is one reason the market feels like it has lost energy. When you see commentators like Amy Cappellazzo note in The Art Newspaper that we live in a bland, algorithmically attenuated information environment, part of what she’s saying is that we need a new thesis—actually, many new theses. “Thinking and betting bravely on something less than obvious,” Cappellazzo wrote, “is what will save us personally, and bring a renewed robustness to the art market, curatorial practice, dinner conversations and free thinking.”

Now for the dubious takes. First was the claim trumpeted in a headline in The Art Newspaper that one unnamed auction house will fold—for which the source, London dealer Niru Ratnam, offered no evidence. I guess we’re supposed to infer that Ratnam means Sotheby’s, just because there’s been so much news recently surrounding its layoffs and cashflow. Remarkably, even amid the recent dour drumbeat, there’s no reason to believe that Sotheby’s is unprofitable. (Indeed, people who have recently left the company have many things to say, but the one thing they don’t say is that the company is losing money.) As Wall Power subscribers know, the cuts at Sotheby’s have nothing to do with shortfalls, and everything to do with generating a greater return to pay its investors or attract new capital. This sort of prediction either demonstrates the schadenfreude within the market, or the lack of broader financial acuity—perhaps both. It’s entirely possible—in the sense that anything is possible—that Phillips or Bonhams or even Christie’s could go out of business. But it is exceedingly unlikely. Bonhams is backed by private equity; by all accounts, there was a very good offer to buy Phillips not long ago. And Christie’s is owned by a family office with deep pockets that also owns other assets that fit nicely with the auction business. The other irresponsible prediction I saw recently was in, of all places, an in/out list for 2025. Cats and cat memes are out, artist Nicole Eisenman told Cultured magazine. What’s in? “Long lunches with a bottle of wine; Peptides and bio-hacking lite; Still life painting; Ideological decay.” Cute. But there’s also this item on her “in” list: “Assassinations.” Cultures make folk heroes out of unlikely, and often miscast, figures. That said, even making what you think are wry jokes about political violence is decadent, nihilistic, and just plain stupid. Happy New Year, by the way.

That’s it for me today. Tomorrow, Inner Circle subscribers get an exclusive first look at my analysis of ARTDAI’s 2024 data and what it says about the state of the art market. If you’re not yet an Inner Circle member, you can fix that here. Otherwise, you’ll get the summary on Friday. Speak to you then, M